No attendees were present from the Northeast chapter. Jeff facilitated; Tim served as timekeeper; Judy served as stacker (a “stacker” keep track of who will speak next). A "talking stick" was used (only the person in possession of the stick may speak). The above list indicates 36 attendees (9 nonvoting) (so 27 voting attendees)

One attendee reminded us that only persons who have been designated by their chapters as voting representatives have the right to vote at SCC meetings.

2. Adopt groundrules. The groundrules for meetings (developed at meetings in November 2002) were adopted to apply to this meeting by consensus.

3. Approval of tonight’s proposed agenda/additions and deletions. The proposed agenda was accepted by consensus. An additional agenda item on an alternative September 11 commemoration, proposed by Steve Krevisky, was approved for addition to the end of the proposed agenda. [See "announcements" at the end of the meeting.]

4. Comments/approval of May SCC minutes. The minutes were approved by consensus.

5 Treasurer's report. The Party bank account has holds $2,200; $1200 is owed in debt. In a typical month, there is $400 in operating expenses but only $300 comes in.

6 PROPOSALS

(a) Proposal for a CTGP Women’s Caucus (Justine McCabe, Judy Herkimer, Karin Norton, Penny Teal, Audrey Cole) (see Proposal Form handout attached to the proposed agenda--it is appended to these minutes). Justine handed out a copy of the proposal which had been modified in two ways: (1) the addition of Lindsay Mathews to the list of presenters; (2) substitution, in the interest of clarity, of the words "Whereas the CTGP has historically had few women in leadership positions ..." for "Whereas the CTGP has historically had a paucity of women in leadership positions ..." Justine read aloud parts of the proposal.

One attendee noted that the proposal states: "That this Women's Caucus shall have one vote at State Central Committee meetings by one representative (or alternate) elected by members of this Caucus". The attendee wondered whether other caucuses have such a vote at SCC meetings. Another attendee replied that there now are no such caucuses with a vote at SCC meetings, but that the national Green Party has such voting arrangements for caucuses of groups which were historically oppressed in United States history.

One attendee wondered whether it might happen that the Caucus representative could have two votes at SCC meetings--one as a representative of the caucus and one as a chapter representative. Another attendee wondered if one vote (that of the representative of the Women's Caucus) would be sufficient to affect the results of SCC voting in any meaningful way, given that tonight there were 36 attendees.

Justine noted that the current Executive Committee (co-chairs, treasurer, secretary) consists of four males and one female. Other attendees noted that at tonight's SCC meeting there are 23 males and 9 females; that last year 6 men and 2 women ran for office as Greens in Connecticut, and that only 16% of Green candidates for public office last year were female.

Another attendee noted that it might be good to form a caucus of (racial) minorities within the Connecticut Green Party.

The proposal to form a Women's Caucus was accepted by vote (yes form the caucus--21; no don't form it--0; abstain--1).

(b) Proposal relating to death of Rachel Corrie (American college student killed in the Occupied Territories by the Israeli Defense Forces) (Stanley Heller, Mazin Qumsiyeh, David Eliscu, Mike DeRosa, Justine McCabe) (see Proposal Form handout attached to the agenda--appended to these minutes) Stanley Heller explained that Rachel Corrie was killed while acting nonviolently to try to prevent the destruction of the home of a Palestinian pharmacist. His home was not being destroyed because of anything he did; rather, Israel wanted the area. A bulldozer ran over Rachel and then backed over her again. Forty six members of Congress (none from Connecticut) have signed onto a bill calling for an investigation of the incident. The Middle East Crisis committee constructed a website related to this matter (www.corrie-ct.8k.com).

One attendee noted that the proposal form contains an excerpt from a press release of the national Green Party on the Corrie issue.

(c) Proposal to form an elections committee (Executive Committee) (see proposal form handout attached--appended to these minutes) Tom read the proposal. He said that many of the ideas in the proposal come from the national Party's CCC committee, which is trying to implement the same ideas.

Part of the proposal refers to providing "material" support to campaigns when possible. Another part of the proposal refers to "help determine which races are most important in the state". One attendee asked what criteria would be used to determine which campaigns are most important. Could we get more details about what the national Party is doing before we vote on this resolution? Another attendee said that a Connecticut elections committee could decide to follow what the national Party is doing or we could decide to do things differently; we could decide to allocate resources equally or unequally. Mike DeRosa asked if there are national Party resources being allocated to winnable campaigns; Penny referred Mike to the national website. [Secretary's note: www.gp.org home page--on left click on "Coordinated Campaign Committee--on the (interesting) page that appears click on "Campaign Resources and Matching Funds Program"--deadline is July 20 to apply.]

Someone asked if the old elections committee could be resurrected rather than forming a new committee.

The SCC voted to accept the proposal for the formation of an elections committee (yes accept the proposal--23; no don't accept--0; abstain--0).

7. OLD BUSINESS

(a) Diversity within the Connecticut Green Party—brief announcement of planned meeting to address this issue (Mike DeRosa). Mike said that a meeting to address expanding racial/ethnic/etc. diversity within the Connecticut Green Party will take place July 2, 2003 at 6:30pm at Tisane's Tea and Coffee Bar, 537 Farmington Ave in Hartford (near Kinkos' copies). Chapters should encourage everyone to attend, including people who are themselves members of minority communities. Mike said that it would be better if the Green Party could become less of a white, middle class party. Ideas include forming a diversity caucus within the Connecticut Green Party and creating staff position(s) such as political director.

(b) Discussion of Executive Committee Meetings (Northeast chapter). This agenda item was not taken up. No one from the Northeast chapter was present.

(c) Communication within the Connecticut Green Party (Michael Burns/Ed DuBrule). Ed said that he and Michael Burns had discussed to what extent names/street addresses/e-mails/phone numbers should be circulated within the Green Party; there is a question here of balancing privacy concerns versus the need for Party members to be able to easily communicate with one another. An idea had been proposed: at each SCC meeting a clipboard (or yellow pad) could be passed around. Any attendee could write down any information on this clipboard they chose (name and street address AND/OR e-mail address AND/OR phone number); this would be a completely optional activity. Ed will type up this sheet, make copies, and pass out the sheet to the attendees at the next SCC meeting.

An attendee asked if it would be possible to retract the information. Ed said that since the sheet would already have been passed out, it would not be possible to retract it. Ed added, however, that perhaps further thought needed to be given to what he (Ed) would do with the names--he, like everyone else who received a copy of the list, would be given no constraints on how he used the names.

Another attendee said that she has given out her e-mail address and found herself deluged with e-mail messages, since her e-mail address had been added, without her knowledge or permission, to listserves. She suggested that it be made clear that names on the passed-out sheet NOT be put on listserves; such e-mail addresses should only be used to write one-to-one e-mails. Two other attendees said that they had similar concerns. The suggestion was made that the clipboard say "NOT TO BE USED FOR LISTSERVES".

By consensus, the clipboard (saying "not to be used for listserves") was passed around during this meeting; the information on the clipboard will be distributed to attendees at the next SCC meeting, and this process will occur at every subsequent SCC meeting.

Committee member)--Justine asked that this agenda item be deleted tonight.

(e) Getting the national and Connecticut Green Parties to focus on

issues such as health care, unemployment, etc. (rather than dealing with

internal conflicts) (Ana Lachelier). This agenda item turned into a "brainstorming session" as to (1) how well the state-level Connecticut Green Party is doing; (2) how Greens can better get out the message of what the Green Party stands for. Some of the points made were:

**Chapters sometimes do more work (for example, setting up conferences) than the state-level Party does.

**Recently the SCC has done good work--the media committee and the conflict resolution committees, for example.

**Each Executive Committee member (co-chairs, secretary, treasurer) should come up with two proposals for what the state-level Green Party should accomplish.

-------------------------------------------------------------

**Greens have done lots of good for years at the level of the Connecticut legislature (in healthcare issues, for example). Democrats and Republicans adopt our ideas and take credit for them.

--------------------------------------------------------------

**People have expressed interest in the Green Party but they haven't been receiving information as to what the Green Party stands for.

**The media is not telling people what the Green Party stands for.

**Green Party members need to spread the word about what the Green Party stands for.

**We could send our press releases to a list of other organizations.

**We could recommend that people visit our websites.

**We could refer people to our national platform.

**We could do more tabling.

**We can carry literature in our cars to give out when the opportunity arises.

**Literature can be downloaded from the state and national websites.

**Michael Burns (This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.) has thousands of pamphlets in his bedroom, and also the master.

---------------------------------------------------------------

**If we want people to join the Green Party we have to spend less time squabbling and instead make sure we're in the forefront on issues like Enron and the Living Wage.

(f) How Connecticut will give input to the national decision about whether (and how) to run a Green Party Presidential candidate. (Shoreline chapter/discussed at previous SCC meeting(s)). David Adams suggested the formation of a committee which would write a proposal that would be sent to the national Party. This committee would give Connecticut's opinions on the presidential campaign issues.

Could the elections committee (just formed in item 6c above) work on this proposal? A member of the Executive Committee indicated that the Executive Committee has pictured the work of the elections committee to be dealing only with Connecticut campaigns.

An attendee reminded us that there will discussion of the presidential campaign questions at the upcoming national Greens conference [Washington DC, July 18-20]. Karin noted that everyone is welcome at this event.

John noted that the national Party's presidential elections exploratory committee recently asked for new committee members; no one from Connecticut is on this committee. Another attendee noted that this national committee is charged with making inquiries of potential Green Party presidential candidates.

Didn't a recent SCC meeting decide that forum(s) on this issue would be organized within Connecticut?

Ed DuBrule said that he had received a fundraising letter from national which stated that states were to hold Green Party presidential primaries or conventions.

Mike DeRosa said that there's a feeling among Hartford chapter members that there's no rush. Greens can wait to see what Democratic candidates emerge and what issues they focus on. Mike said that even if Greens feel we won't be running a presidential candidate, there's no need to tell this to the world. Let's act as if we're going to be running a presidential candidate; the Green Party convention may decide otherwise.

Penny said that we need to form a Connecticut committee which will get input from Connecticut Greens so that our representative to the convention can vote based on the wishes of Connecticut Greens. There was a questionaire sent out as an e-mail about what we desire in a presidential candidate; few returned it.

An attendee suggested putting a questionnaire on the subject on the Connecticut Greens website.

Tim said that he's working in the Connecticut Draft Nader Campaign. (Others should organize around what they see as the right path.) This campaign is trying to bring about a national consensus that Nader should be the candidate. It should be a serious campaign.

Tim continued that he will come to any chapter to participate in a discussion of the issue. Or he can help set up and publicize such discussions. If you would like to be a panel member at such a discussion, contact Tim. [Tim's contact information is available from the secretary, at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. or 860-523-4016.]

David Adams reiterated that he wished that we could form a committee to deal with Connecticut's input to national on this issue. John Battista said that every chapter should be represented on such a committee. John will write a proposal to form such a committee and forward it to the secretary for inclusion on the agenda of the July 29 SCC meeting by one week before the meeting.

(g) (30 minutes) Vote to become an allied organization with Al-Awda

The 30 minutes allotted to this agenda item will be divided as follows:
(1) 10 minute presentation by person(s) who favor the alliance
(2) 10 minute presentation by person(s) who oppose the alliance
(3) 10 minutes of questions to the presenters
(4) vote on the issue

Justine McCabe, Mazin Qumsiyeh, Stanley Heller, and Ed Savage spoke within the 10 minute presentation period allocated for persons who favor the alliance with Al-Awda. Justine passed out three handouts. The first handout (available on the internet at the national Green Party's website: http://www.gp.org/press/pr_10_23_00.html) is a press release dated 10/23/2000 and titled "The Association of State Green Parties--Green Party Endorses UN Security Council Resolution. Proposes Basis for Israeli-Palestinian Peace." Excerpts from the text follow: "... The ASGP supports recent UN Security Council Resolution 1322, which deplores Israeli provocation at Haram Al-Sharif and condemns the excessive use of force against Palestinians. ... There can be neither justice nor an enduring peace for Palestinians or Israelis as long as international law and human rights are not strictly observed ... Therefore, the Association of State Green Parties, USA calls on the US Government to committ to the following propositions, and to stop all further aid to Israel until it also adheres to them: [1] Peace negotiations must be re-established based on equality of the two parties before international law ... [2] Jerusalem must be a shared city ... [3] Israel must withdraw from all lands acquired since 1967 ... [4] Palestinian refugees' inalienable rights to return to their homes and to receive material compensatin for their losses must be honored." Justine stated that this press release shows that the national Green Party in 2000 supported the Right of Return.

The second handout (http://www.gp.org/position/palestinian_rally.html) is proposal (position statement) which was to be voted on by a committee of the national Green Party during March 2001. It is titled "ASGP Endorsement for Mass Rally for Palestinian Refugee Rights". Excerpts from it follow. "On April 7, 2001 thousands will march and rally in New York City and in other cities around the world to reaffirm the right of Palestinian refugees to return to homes and lands from which they were expelled in 1948 and thereafter. Spear-headed by the Palestinian Right to Return Coalition, known by its Arabic name Al-Awda, these rallies will coincide with the fifty-third anniversary of the massacre of Palestinians in the village of Deir Yassin. This massacre is one of many atrocities committed in 1948 and thereafter, and which forced Palestinians to leave their homeland. ... Whereas the Israeli 1950 "Law of Return"--which states that "Every Jew has the right to come this country ... Whereas feasible solutions honoring Palestinian refugees' right of return have been proposed based on the fact that 78 percent of the Jewish population of Israel currently lives on only 15% of the land ... Whereas over 80 peace, social justice and human rights organizations including Amnesty International ... have cosponsored the April 7, 2001 Palestinian Right of Return Rally ... Whereas the CT Green Party voted on February 13, 2001 to endorse the Palestinian Right of Return Rally ... We propose that the Association of State Green Parties (ASGP) support Palestinian human rights and peace ... by publicly endorsing the Palestinian Right of Return Rally in New York on April 7, 2001."

The third handout (http://www.gp.org/press/pr_04_06_01.html) is a press release from the ASGP dated April 6, 2001 titled "Greens Endorse Mass Rally for Palestinian Refugee Rights". Excerpts from it follow. "GREENS ENDORSE MASS RALLY FOR PALESTINIAN REFUGEE RIGHTS to be held in NYC on Saturday, April 7. The Green Party calls for observance of the human right of Palestinian refugees to return home as the basis for a just and enduring peace between Israelis and Palestinians. ... The Green Party endorses a mass rally and march ... to be held in NYC on Saturday, April 7. By co-sponsoring this event, the Green Party reaffirms its unwavering committment to human rights and the observance of international law as the basis for a just and enduring peace between Israelis and Palestinians."

Justine stated that the values and positions of Al-Awda are consistent with the Green Party's Ten Key Values and with international law. Justine has been involved with Al-Awda for three years. The positions the Green Party took has brought Arab-Americans into the Party; this is a "diversity" issue of the same type that we in this room dealt with earlier tonight when Mike DeRosa talked about a meeting to attempt to increase diversity within the Connecticut Green Party.

Mazin spoke next and pointed out that 19% of Arab-Americans voted for Nader (though many voted for Bush). Al-Awda is a tax-exempt educational organization (501c3) whose tax records are publicly available. Al-Awda as an organization does not take a position on the "one-state" or "two-state" solutions. Human rights is the greatest concern of Al-Awda. The biggest supporters of Al-Awda, at least in Connecticut, have been from the Green Party. (Al-Awda is open to people of any political affiliation.)

Stanley Heller spoke next. Stan is Jewish. Mazin invited him to get involved with Al-Awda; Stan has been involved with enlisting Jewish support of the Right to Return--we now have more than 500 Jews from all over the world supporting the Right to Return. Al-Awda has 40 to 50 listserves--some regional, some concerned with media issues, etc. Some Palestinians do hate Jews; but at a rally last year which involved Al-Awda, parade officials required that offensive signs be removed from the rally.

Ed Savage spoke next. He signed on to an Al-Awda listserve. Her received no anti-Semitic postings. The policy of the listserve is no anti-Semitic postings.

David Bedell spoke within the 10-minute presentation period allocated for persons who favor the alliance with Al-Awda. He read a statement which had been prepared by himself and Peter Ellner (with input from others). The complete statement is appended to these minutes. (For lack of time, the last paragraph was not read during the meeting, but it is included in the appendix.) The statement was not passed out at tonight's SCC meeting, but was obtained by secretary after the meeting. Excerpts from the statement follow.

Tonight we are deciding whether to accept Al-Awda as an allied organization. In English, Al-Awda is known as The Palestinian Right of Return Coalition. Al-Awda's main project is a campaign to demand that any Palestinian who in 1948 lived in what has become Israel should be allowed to move back to Israel. This includes not only the Palestinians who were alive at that time but all of the descendants of those individuals. This position calls for Palestinians to not only be able to settle in a sovereign Palestinian state that nearly all Greens support the creation of, but for Palestinians to also be able to settle in the territory that constitutes Israel after the establishment of a Palestinian state. ... It is my belief that the cause of the Palestinian refugees is one that we should support but that the approach being taken by Al-Awda is unworkable ... The thorny problem with the demand for the right of return, as Al-Awda campaigns for it, is that if representatives and advocates of Palestinians take this position, it drives Israeli and American Jews as well as many non-Jewish Americans away from the peace process. Likewise, if representatives of Israel demand a renunciation of the right of return it drives Palestinians and their representatives away from the peace process. Unfortunately, the passions on both sides of this conflict are so great that opening this issue up creates a flash point. Of all the issues in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, the return of refugees is the most contentious and the most difficult to solve. The only way the parties are going to make progress on this issue is to first create the political climate where trust exists and passions are subsided. In order to do that we need tackle the many other issues that can be faced and are resolvable at this point. ...

1 ... Right now Israelis live in a state of extreme fear. That doesn't always have to exist. For centuries these two people were capable of living together. During the brief window after Arafat and Rabin shook hands and before Rabin was assassinated, there was a flourishing of economic and political cooperation between these two peoples. With a future warming of relations and a lessening of security fears, many of the barriers will come down for the Israelis and they will be more able to accept more Palestinians in Israel.

2. With the establishing of a Palestinian state that is sovereign and that has a healthy economy Palestinians will have less of an incentive for wanting to move to Israel.

3. Israel with the help of United States and other Western countries needs to provide compensation to Palestinians for property that they lost as well as a payment for any Palestinian refugee who chooses not to move to Israel. The option of compensation will lessen the incentive for resettlement in Israel.

4. A negotiated settlement needs to be reached with the Arab countries for better treatment of Palestinians. The majority of Palestinians live in Arab countries where they are mistreated in some places deplorably so. A campaign needs to be waged for Palestinians in these countries to be granted citizenship and to be treated in a manner equal to other citizens. If the lives of Palestinians in these countries are enhanced there will be less pressure on Israel to accept refugees for resettlement.

5. Israel needs to improve its treatment of the Arabs who currently live in Israel. ..."

The agenda called for 10 minutes of questions to the presenters. Instead, for 10 minutes people were allowed to make 1-minute statements about the issue of affiliation with Al-Awda. Some of the statements made were:

**Al-Awda calls for immediate right of return. Other supporters of the Palestinians have laid out other approaches.

**Israel gives right of return to Jewish people. Palestinians should also have it.

**We can work with Al-Awda even if we may not agree on every issue.

**Does Al-Awda promote violence or non-violence? (Mazin answered that he is on the national coordinating board of Al-Awda and that Al-Awda is a nonpolitical educational organization; Al-Awda does not advocate violence. Mazin referred us to the Al-Awda website.)

**An attendee from the New Haven chapter stated that the question of affiliating with Al-Awda is tearing apart the New Haven chapter. Greens should not focus on such divisive issues but rather Greens should focus on pressuring elected representatives and on running candidates.

**The Right of Return is a basic human right. Details of implementation of the right of return should be negotiated.

**If we don't agree with affiliating with Al-Awda let's propose another organization which promotes Palestinian human rights that we could ally with.

**I have read many Al-Awda e-mails, and none have been anti-Semitic or vengeful.

**Since the Connecticut Green Party voted in February 2001 to endorse the Palestinian Right of Return Rally, how can Connecticut Greens advocate against this? Such advocacy violates the bylaws.

**Has the Green Party investigated how Al-Awda funds are spent?

**Greens should take on difficult issues. That's why people become Greens. We need to say that the Right of Return must be part of the discussion.

The SCC voted to become an allied organization of Al-Awda (for the meaning of this see minutes of the April 2003 SCC meeting). The vote was yes (become an allied organization)--22; no (don't ally)--4; abstain--1.

One attendee then stated that he appreciated that David Bedell and Peter Ellner had chosen to stand up for their beliefs on a difficult issue. This attendee indicated that he did not believe that David and Peter should be criticized for doing so, even if the Connecticut Green Party had voted in February 2001 to endorse the Palestinian Right of Return Rally, and he (the attendee) thanked them for their statement. Applause was heard.

The remaining agenda items were not reached due to lack of time.

Announcements:

**Tom Sevigny annnounced that chapters even just CONSIDERING POSSIBLY running candidates need to submit the information on these candidates to him, because a form must be submitted fairly soon to the state of Connecticut listing our possible candidates. Tom targets early July for turning in this form.

**Steve Krevisky has attended a meeting regarding the possibility of an alternative 9/11 commemoration or demonstration. It could be on the theme of "Where do progressives go from here, in light of the Iraq war?" It could be concerned with organizing against imperialism. Is the Connecticut Green Party interested in getting involved in this?

**Penny Teal is on the Coordinated Campaign Committee (CCC) of the national Green Party. This committee has 10 elected members from around the United States. Penny would like to continue being on the committee, but she wonders if there is anyone else interested in running from Connecticut. (Connecticut can put forth one candidate.) (If there is not an SCC vote to withdraw or replace Penny, she continues to serve.)

**Mike DeRosa has T-shirts which chapters can sell at a profit.

**Conflict resolution forms (to file ethics complaints or other complaints) are available from the Process Committee. Contact David Adams or Rachel Goodkind.

**The Process Committee reported that it is now dealing with a complaint filed by John Battista. The Process Committee noted that action at the July SCC meeting (selection of a three neutral chapters in connection with formation of a Resolution Committee) will be necessary in order to meet a deadline (August 14) specified in the conflict resolution process adopted by the SCC as it pertains to John's complaint. (Process Committee members are David Adams, Rachel Goodkind, and Lynah Linwood.)

Proposed agenda for 6/24/03 SCC meeting—Trinity Church in Middletown, 7-9pm

Directions to Trinity Church (CHURCH OF THE HOLY TRINITY) in Middletown: Trinity Church is on AT 381 Main St, between Washington St. (Route 66) and Court St. Main St. runs roughly north and south (parallel to the Connecticut River). As you head south on Main St., Trinity Church is on the right after you go past Washington St. (Remember that the other church in Middletown where we've met is on the Court St.)

8. NEW BUSINESS--no new business was proposed for this month's meeting.

Adjourn promptly at 9pm.

NOTE: A CLIPBOARD (OR YELLOW PAD) WILL BE PASSED AROUND DURING THIS SCC MEETING. INFORMATION YOU CHOOSE TO WRITE ON THE CLIPBOARD (YOUR NAME, E-MAIL AND/OR PHONE NUMBER AND/OR STREET ADDRESS) WILL BE TYPED UP AND DISTRIBUTED TO ALL ATTENDEES AT THE JUNE SCC MEETING. WE HOPE TO HAVE SUCH A CLIPBOARD AT EVERY FUTURE SCC MEETING. NOTE THAT INFORMATION PUT ON THIS CLIPBOARD MAY END UP BEING DISTRIBUTED WIDELY WITHIN THE GREEN PARTY AND PERHAPS EVEN BEYOND (SEE AGENDA ITEM 7d ABOVE).

GENDER EQUITY:
We have inherited a social system based on male dominance of politics and economics. We call for the replacement of the cultural ethics of domination and control with more cooperative ways of interacting that respect differences of opinion and gender.

SOCIAL JUSTICE AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY
All persons should have the rights and opportunity to benefit equally from the resources afforded us by society and the environment. We must consciously confront in ourselves, our organizations, and society at large, barriers such as . . . sexism . . . , which act to deny fair treatment and equal justice under the law.

RESPECT FOR DIVERSITY
We believe it is important to value . . . diversity, and to promote the development of respectful relationships across these lines. We believe that the many diverse elements of society should be reflected in our organizations and decision-making bodies, and we support the leadership of people who have been traditionally closed out of leadership roles.
Whereas the CTGP has historically had a paucity of women in leadership positions (e.g., at present, of five executive committee members, one is a woman), as Green Party candidates for public office (e.g., in the last election, of eight candidates, two were women), and as participants and facilitators in State Central Committee meetings (e.g., attendees tend to consist of two men for every woman);

Whereas the Green Party of CT strives to strengthen gender solidarity/support while balancing such solidarity with cooperation between men and women;

Whereas the Green Party of CT strives to initiate party and public policies and support legislation that enhances these key values pertaining to gender equity;

PROPOSAL:
Therefore, we propose:

That the Green Party of CT recognize and endorse a Green Women’s Caucus;

That this Caucus will be open to any interested CT Green Party member in good standing

That this Women’s Caucus shall have one vote at State Central Committee meetings by one representative (or alternate) elected by members of this Caucus;

That this Caucus will elect a delegate to the CTGP annual convention

That this Caucus will elect a delegate to the USGP national Women’s Caucus;

That the mission of this caucus will include ensuring an equal place for women with men in the Green Party of CT by:

-Developing and supporting leadership roles as elected CTGP officers, and candidates for public office;

-Providing mentoring for women in these roles, including outreach to younger women in the community (interns, high school/college students);

-Becoming a source of mediation and peacemaking inside and outside the party;

-Raising awareness of inequality and oppression of all varieties;

-Reviewing CTGP policy decisions and legislative endorsements with regard to gender equity in order to increase the likelihood that “gender” and other identities will eventually become unselfconscious and recede in interpersonal relationships;

In sum, this caucus will work to address the following:

How can we replace the cultural ethics of dominance and control and a zero sum political stance, with more cooperative ways of interacting?

How can we encourage women and men to understand the perspective of one another other, both for its own sake and as a way to further understanding of those outside one’s own group?

How can we promote the building of respectful, positive, non-hierarchical and responsible relationships across the lines of gender and other divisions?

How can we encourage a rich, diverse political culture that furthers the integration of the “feminine” and “masculine” parts of human experience present in everyone; that is, support for blending agency, instrumentality and form with receptivity, nurturance and communion?

How can we proceed with as much respect for the means as the end, the process as much as the product, of our efforts?

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE (100 WORDS OR LESS): "Corrie, a 23-year-old activist with the International Solidarity Movement, was crushed by a bulldozer on March 16 while trying to block the demolition of Palestinian homes in Gaza by Israeli forces. The driver of the bulldozer drove forward over Corrie after she had climbed down from speaking with him, which suggests that the driver probably knew she wasn't Palestinian. On March 18, a memorial service at the site of her death was disrupted by Israeli forces using teargas, stun guns, and tanks.

"’The government of Israel has been evicting Palestinians from their homes, destroying their orchards and farms, restricting their access to food, schools, and medical care, imposing economic ruin and unemployment, attacking refugee camps, and visiting violence and death on children,’ said Holly Hart, Iowa Green, co-chair of the party's national platform committee, and member of People for Justice in Palestine. ‘Israel has leveled over 3,000 homes in the past two years.’" [From a press release of the Green Party of the United States dated 3/21/03]

PROPOSAL (200 words or less):

(a) That the Connecticut Green Party support passage of House Concurrent Resolution 111 which calls on the U.S. government to launch an investigation into the death of Rachel Corrie.

(b) That the Party support the efforts of internationals who go to the occupied territories and seek to protect human rights.

(c) That the Party help gather the names of supporters of the resolution to be listed on the www.corrie-ct.8k.com website and be listed as a co-sponsor of the site.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE (100 words or less; include relationship, reasons and/or justification to the State Central Committee): this proposal arose from thinking about what role the state Party might play in helping to elect Green candidates, whether the candidates be running in local races or statewide races.

PROPOSAL (200 words or less):

The Steering Committee proposes the formation of an elections committee. This committee is open to all Greens and it is urged that each chapter have at least one member on the committee. The committee will provide the following services:

**provide material support to campaigns when possible;

**help train chapters in running successful campaigns (from finding the right candidate to getting people to the polls on election day);

**keep various campaigns in communication with each other, so that resources and wisdom can be shared;

**help determine which races are most important in the state.

**learn from previous campaigns and build for future ones; and

**advise candidates and campaign support people to the best of our ability, or to link them up with experts when needed

Statement read (except for the last paragraph) at the SCC meeting by David Bedell:

Tonight we are deciding whether to accept Al-Awda as an allied organization. In English, Al-Awda is known as The Palestinian Right of Return Coalition. Al-Awda's main project is a campaign to demand that any Palestinian who in 1948 lived in what has become Israel should be allowed to move back to Israel. This includes not only the Palestinians who were alive at that time but all of the descendants of those individuals. This position calls for Palestinians to not only be able to settle in a sovereign Palestinian state that nearly all Greens support the creation of, but for Palestinians to also be able to settle in the territory that constitutes Israel after the establishment of a Palestinian state.

Many of you are aware that Palestinians have been living under terrible conditions. For 55 years the great proportion of Palestinians have lived as refugees and faced discrimination and inhumane treatment by Israel and also by Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and many other countries in that region. The question we face in this discussion is whether the Green Party should take a political position to aid these refugees and if so, does Al-Awda's position favorably represent the approach that the Green Party supports.

It is my belief that the cause of the Palestinian refugees is one that we should support but that the approach being taken by Al-Awda is unworkable and not in keeping with the Green Party approach to settling international conflicts.

The thorny problem with the demand for the right of return, as Al-Awda campaigns for it, is that if representatives and advocates of Palestinians take this position, it drives Israeli and American Jews as well as many non-Jewish Americans away from the peace process. Likewise, if representatives of Israel demand a renunciation of the right of return it drives Palestinians and their representatives away from the peace process. Unfortunately, the passions on both sides of this conflict are so great that opening this issue up creates a flash point. Of all the issues in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, the return of refugees is the most contentious and the most difficult to solve. The only way the parties are going to make progress on this issue is to first create the political climate where trust exists and passions are subsided. In order to do that we need tackle the many other issues that can be faced and are resolvable at this point.

The workable approach to the refugee issue, and the public position that the Green Party should take, is to state firmly:

1 That the issue of refugees is a critical issue that must be addressed if there is going to be a just peace;

2. That Israel and the United States bear a share of responsibility in solving this issue;

3. That this issue needs to be part of an overall peace program with other steps that the parties need to take before they are ready to tackle the contentious process of agreeing on a solution for the refugees.

Developing the political climate to take on the refugee issue is totally achievable. When Ralph Nader was in New Haven this past February he said, "The Palestinian Israeli conflict is eminently solvable. The massive peace movement in Israel which is now out of power has it laid 1-2-3. It's, basically, end the occupation, a viable Palestinian state, a place in East Jerusalem, some sort of compensation for seized properties many years ago and the problem is solved."

I think there is every reason to believe we can reach through a peaceful means a just solution for the refugees. When this comes it will be through a scenario that includes a number of things:

1. When there is an end to the Intifada, when the Arab countries recognize Israel, and when Israelis and Palestinians have harmonious relations, Israelis will let their guard down. Right now Israelis live in a state of extreme fear. That doesn't always have to exist. For centuries these two people were capable of living together. During the brief window after Arafat and Rabin shook hands and before Rabin was assassinated, there was a flourishing of economic and political cooperation between these two peoples. With a future warming of relations and a lessening of security fears, many of the barriers will come down for the Israelis and they will be more able to accept more Palestinians in Israel.

2. With the establishing of a Palestinian state that is sovereign and that has a healthy economy Palestinians will have less of an incentive for wanting to move to Israel.

3. Israel with the help of United States and other Western countries needs to provide compensation to Palestinians for property that they lost as well as a payment for any Palestinian refugee who chooses not to move to Israel. The option of compensation will lessen the incentive for resettlement in Israel.

4. A negotiated settlement needs to be reached with the Arab countries for better treatment of Palestinians. The majority of Palestinians live in Arab countries where they are mistreated in some places deplorably so. A campaign needs to be waged for Palestinians in these countries to be granted citizenship and to be treated in a manner equal to other citizens. If the lives of Palestinians in these countries are enhanced there will be less pressure on Israel to accept refugees for resettlement.

5. Israel needs to improve its treatment of the Arabs who currently live in Israel. They represent 20% of the population are currently second-class citizens. If their lives are improved it will set a standard for the treatment of Palestinians elsewhere in the world.

In summary, the Green Party approach to the refugee issue needs to include sensitivity and creativity. It needs to put consideration of the issue off the table until intermediary steps of trust building occur. Finally, it must be a comprehensive plan to ease the burden on any one party.

In contrast, the Al-Awda approach is absolutist. It demands Israel accept Palestinians now at a time when the two sides are killing each other. It demands that Israel accept the settlement of an unknown number of Palestinians as the only solution in the matter.

One must recognize the situation that the Israeli citizens face. They have fought 5 wars against Arab neighbors, in large part initiated by the Arab countries themselves. They are subjected to almost daily bombings just as the Palestinians are subjected to daily violence. And they live in a country that they see as a refuge after being victims of near extinction. Very little of the travails of the Israelis are the fault of average Palestinians. But it must be understood to all of us that Israelis cannot accept the absolutist demands of Al-Awda. To assert the demands in the manner that Al-Awda makes them is to instigate continued and escalating war.

The issue before us is not whether one side of this question believes in morality and the other side doesn't, it's not whether one side supports the International Declaration of Human Rights and the other side doesn't. The question is, can we find a constructive approach that works for the Green Party. I believe we should be ready to work with Palestinian groups on many meaningful issues such as a sovereign state and better treatment of Palestinians living in Israel. However, Al-Awda's campaign for a right of return is not the approach the Green Party should take.

[If you have serious disagreements with the accuracy of anything written in these minutes, please contact the secretary, Ed DuBrule, at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. or 860-523-4016. If your e-mail or letter is titled "I remember things happened differently" or "I remember that this also occurred", I will treat your e-mail or letter (or a summary of it) as an addendum to these minutes. Such e-mails or letters must be received within 6 weeks of the date of the meeting to be considered addenda.]